Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Case Report

Subcutaneous and Gastrointestinal Exposure to Metallic Mercury: Report of 2 Cases: Sung Kwan Lee, Hyoung Jai Lee, Hong Jae Chae, Jai Dong Moon; Korean Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2003;15(4):446-451. Published online December 31, 2003; DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/kjoem.2003.15.4.446

Abstract PDF: BACKGROUND
Mercury poisoning presents a variety of clinical pictures depending on the chemical structure, the route of exposure, the amount absorbed and other individual factors. Therefore, the ingestive and subcutaneous absorption of elemental(metallic) mercury can be considered to be relatively harmless in contrast to the inhalation of mercury vapor.
CASE REPORTS
A 72-year-old man presented to the department of urology due to tenderness, edema and a necrotic abscess of his penis after trauma. The soft tissue abscess required a surgical resection of the penis. For chelation therapy, oral D-penicillamine was administrated. 7 months later, he showed no subjective or objective signs of mercury poisoning. Another 5-yearold girl presented to the emergency department after accidental self-ingestion of elemental mercury. She was followed clinically and did not show any systemic mercury poisoning.
CONCLUSION
The Mercury concentrations in the blood and urine were elevated in the case of subcutaneous exposure, but was unchanged in the case of ingestion. Subcutaneous and gastrointestinal exposure to metallic mercury has a minimal risk for systemic mercury poisoning, which is in contrast to the exposure by inhalation.

22 View
0 Download

Original Article

Evaluation of Mercury Concentration in Spot Urine for Biological Monitoring Among Metallic Mercury Exposed Workers: Durumee Hong, Soon Duck Kim, Yong Tae Yum, Jae Wook Choi; Korean Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 1996;8(1):127-136. Published online February 29, 1996; DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/kjoem.1996.8.1.127

Abstract PDF: Biological monitoring for exposures permits estimation of organ doses or body burdens from exposures through all relevant portals of entry. Biological monitoring data may be used to estimate environmental concentrations when the latter cannot be measured directly. Biological indices are usually surrogates for the concentration of a chemical or its metabolites or its effect at the true receptors. Mercury concentration in urine has-been most-coinmoialy-recommended as a biological exposure index of mercury. For data based on urine analysis, variation in urine volume is the most significant. The urinary concentration related to excretion of the solute provides some correction for fluctuation of urine output. Sampling time must be carefully observed because distribution and elimination of a chemical are kinetic events. This study has evaluated mercury concentration in spot urine compared to the results of 24 hour collected urine by the adjustment methods (specif ic gravity, creatinine) and sampling time. The subjects were 43 workers who had been exposed to the metallic mercury. The results were as follows: 1. The correlation coefficients between mercury concentration in 24 hour urine and that in spot urine were 0.639-0.715 and were not different by adjustment methods. 2. In the high exposure group who were over lOOug/1 of urinary mercury, the correlation coefficients between mercury concentration in 24 hour urine and that in spot urine were 0. 687-0.824 and were not different by adjustment methods. 3. Mercury concentration in spot urine were very variable by sampling time or exposure time. The correlation coefficients between mercury concentration in 24 hour urine and that in spot urine were most highest as 0.85-0.91 at first voiding urine in the morning, and were 0. 77-0.86 at urine collected within four hours before end of shift. In the biological monitoring to exposure of mercury, sampling of spot urine were most proper at first voiding urine in the morning, and then at urine collected within four hours before end of shift. But the adjustment methods of specific gravity and creatinine were no difference of the results.

23 View
0 Download

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search